> I think you're playing semantics here. Where? > The collective, nationalistic culture of China isn't a fact in dispute. Really? If they are so collectivist

> I think you're playing semantics here. Where? > The collective, nationalistic culture of China isn't a fact in dispute. Really? If they are so collectivistic and nationalistic, how come there is two of them ( china and taiwan )? > The fact that the West acts as a union of extremely disparate and unique nations Extremely disparate and unique? It's pretty much a white western european club. If we are so different what is this borg-like idea of "western values"? There is nothing unique about "the West". Actually, "the West" is the antithesis of unique. We are borg-like in our insistence that everyone adopt "western values" - whatever nonsense that is. > in league is not even remotely comparable to China's united national front. I know. That's my point. The West is even a greater kind of collectivism. It's a higher form of collectivism which allows the West to rule "the Rest". At a national level, the collectivism is pretty much the same. What makes the West unique is that have a higher form of collectivism. It's why "the West", not an individual country is attacking china. It's also why there is no "the East" backing/helping china. The silliness about western individuality and eastern collectivism is a decades old trope not born out in reality - at an individual, national or supranational level.